The report form ScienceInsider says that although seven were originally convicted, only six won on appeal. That report says:

Only one of the seven experts originally found guilty was convicted today: Bernardo De Bernardinis, who in 2009 was deputy head of Italy’s Civil Protection Department and who will now serve 2 years in jail, pending any further appeals.

According to Gizmodo:

De Bernardinis was singled out because of comments he made to the press about how frequent tremors dissipating energy were a good sign, a discredited idea among seismologists.

The BBC report says:

The prosecution can still seek to have the original verdicts reinstated via a higher court.

One issue that is said to be confused is whether the scientists were convicted for failing to predict the earthquake (which they were not) or in their capacity as members of the hazard warning authority for failing to properly warn the community of inherent, albeit unpredictable risks. I have not been able to find the judge’s published reasons online and even if I did it may not be much help as I don’t read Italian nor know the details of Italian law (but see (see ‘Judge in L’Aquila Earthquake Trial Explains His Verdict‘, ScienceInsider, 21 January 20013), so I do have to rely on others. In that light for an interesting analysis of the case and the meaning of both the prosecution and conviction see:

Thanks Mark, I do know David and his Italian connection, which is why I’ve referred readers to his paper as he seems like the English language commentator with the closest connection to the events in L’Aquilla.